The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Consensus to delete due to the inability to clearly define the criteria in an objective manner consistently with reliable sources.. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Geordies[edit]

This article has 153 sources, yet I believe it would be a good idea if it were deleted. The reason is quite simple - it is a List article, yet the contents of the list cannot in the main be correctly defined, because the term "Geordie" is extremely disputed, as can be seen from its article. "Geordies" are either people from Newcastle, or from Newcastle and the surrounding area (but which surrounding area?), or people from elsewhere who have lived in Newcastle at some time or another, or people who have lived in this undefined area of the North East for an undefined amount of time, or recently, and somewhat surreally, people who support Newcastle Football Club. Of course, very few editors agree about the exact definition. Therefore, on this sub-article, this has led to a long period of edit-warring, sockpuppetry and vandalism, as can be seen from the article history. This is further confused by the amazingly lazy tendency of the British press to call anyone from anywhere in the North East of England a "Geordie", thus creating completely spurious "reliable sources", such as the ones supporting the inclusion of Heather Mills or Tony Blair. Whilst there are undoubtedly people who do belong on this list, the inclusion of others is incredibly tenuous and in some cases may actually be insulting to those people. I can only see two ways of fixing the problems here - either tightly define the definition of Geordie, or delete the article. Since the former would appear to be impossible, I can see no other option but the latter. Black Kite 22:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per the nomination, a seemingly interesting but disputed, impossible to decide topic, only causing problems on wikipedia. AndreNatas (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. I normally don't think it would be appropriate to delete an article based on content dispute, but this is an exception - this is only a gigantic target for sockpuppetry and edit warring between anons/puppets/well-meaning editors. No prejudice against a compromise or re-creation once the definition of Geordie has been established. Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 23:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Interestingly enough, Mackem (referring to the folks across the other side of the Tyne) has a "List of Mackems"... -- ChrisO (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If Geordie is used in the English language, it can be defined. Disagreements of definition can be sorted out with nuances in the text, etc, etc. If lack of agreement is the justification to delete, shall we nominate Copernicus? Of course not. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Keep - There is no official definition, but this is not a reason to delete the list. Nowadays, it is as much a matter of self-identification than of geography. This applies to all UK regionalisms. The disputes are easily solved by looking at the reverse case, those who wish to remove people from the list should provide a source or direct quote that that person by name is not a Geordie, which will exist if it is being applied offensively. Dubious cases are easily debated in the normal way, case by case, and can even be marked as such, because in the absence of an official definition, it is not for WP to make one up to make life easier and deny there are no notable Geordies at all. On a final note, I strongly believe that most of the disruption is coming from the actions of one user, User:Molag Bal and socks, and cases are pending. Finally, for the per nom voters, I have no clue about Heather Mills, but there are numerous sources for Tony Blair (claiming) to have been a life long Newcastle United fan, and a billion reliable sources assigning the term Geordie to Newcastle Fans. MickMacNee (talk) 00:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mick, are you seriously suggesting that people should only be removed from the list if there are reliable sources showing that this person is NOT a Geordie? That's not how Wikipedia works - you don't have to prove a negative! Many of these entries are sourced from appallingly bad sources - the Heather Mills one is laughable, for instance. (Incidentally, Mills is also in the Mackem article, because she claims to be a Sunderland FC fan - a bit unusual for a Geordie, no? Paul Collingwood is also in both lists - his Mackem entry is sourced from the BBC as well!) Do you see the problem now? Deleting this list is not saying "there are no notable Geordies", it's about removing disruption from the encyclopedia, because the definition is never going to be agreed upon, and therefore nor is the list. Incidentally, claiming someone who supports Newcastle FC is automatically a Geordie is not only plain wrong, but also insulting. Black Kite 00:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just cutting back in here, I draw your attention to [1] which is a BBC column written by Durham born Collingwood himself where he says he has a Geordie accent. The Mackem source [2] is an interview with a Sunderland born cricketer, where the journalist writes, "and fellow mackem Collingwood....". Now are you seriously going to continue this farce that there isn't a clear obvious choice as the preferred source in that case? As an aside, you will see here [3] that Tony Blair in an interview admits to being a long time Newcastle fan, which equates to Geordie in many sources. Seriously unverifiable and disputed? I realy don't think so, merely a requirement to explain the different uses of the word that as another editor says is a widely used term in the language, so nothing new to Wikipedia, it's standard practice. MickMacNee (talk) 03:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So basically, you want it all deleted to remove disruption? That is absolutely ridiculous and against all precedence. And please show me any source where any Newcastle United fan has taken offence at being called a Geordie, this is frankly nonsense. One or two debated entries is not a reason to delete. This Afd is what is offensive. At the end of the day, you are not the spokesperson of any of these people, and you are not in a position to state what they believe. Sir Bobby Robson was born in Durham, are you going to go and add an entry to his article to state he is not a Geordie? Do you not see how all you have done is just plant yourself firmly on one side of two ridiculous POV's and lost all sense of what wikipedia is, NPOV and verifiable. MickMacNee (talk) 00:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've missed the point totally. I am not saying that all these entries are not valid or verifiable. Some are - a lot aren't, and there can therefore never be a stable article. Incidentally, the "insulting" part of the "Newcastle fans are Geordies" claim is, of course, not Newcastle fans being insulted, but "real" Geordies being insulted that someone can somehow become a Geordie by buying a replica shirt and a scarf. Oh, and you need to read WP:CIVIL. Black Kite 00:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find that derivation of offence to be extremely contrived. I have never heard of any fan being upset by this, and I would again ask for you to provide a source for this. They presumably must be equally offended by their own current chariman, as he wears the shirt and is from the south. Back on point, stability or not, this is never a reason for deletion, and if it has been, I would ask you to provide an example of such a case where it was. I realy do fail to see how you cannot accept there will be disputed entries and these will be treated the same as any other disputed content on wikipedia, through factual based debate, and not resorting to personal opinon. Frankly, I doubt anyone has even tried that hard to present evidence to debunk the Mills entry, rather all they have done is make general points, from their own POV, without a source. Frankly, the fact that most outsiders refer to north easteners as Geordies does not invalidate anything, it is a proveable fact, and merely adds another detail to the article, and you will find even that outside impression is limited to a definable area, to claim the London press is wrong and you are right when there is no official definition is again, total personal opinion. The main article actually fully points out these differences in perspective, as well as very good sources for self confessed Geordies from Durham etc, so why not do the sensible thing and let readers use their own brains to judge for themselves using good content, the way the rest of wikipedia works, rather than remove all sight of the article. MickMacNee (talk) 01:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Previous articles deleted because the edit-warring wasn't worth the trouble? Plenty of precedent. Daniel Brandt, Brian Peppers, Gay Nigger Association of America (18 AfDs!!), Liancourt Rocks (since re-created), etc. Your last point sums up the main problem - "self-confessed Geordies from Durham" - except that many people (and reliable sources) would claim that someone from Durham can't by definition be a Geordie. Black Kite 01:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I don't think the disruption here is anywhere near (and I mean not even within 1%) of the level of that rocks article, I followed that for a while, I think you've over-reached here. Frankly, per BLP, if someone self identifies as a Geordie, you cannot deny this claim on any level whatsoever without bringing in another personal opinion and attempting to tell the world what someone else believes about themselves is wrong. Similarly, in the case of Pavel Srnicek, a Cech!, if the vast majority of 'proper' Geordies consensualy identify him as an honourary Geordie, there is not much you can do to dispute that fact. The only people telling you otherwise will again be working from a personal opinon. This is quite obviously not a situation that results in a 'draw' and a constant instability, at best it ends up with two contradictory sources, with quite an easy explanation in footnotes or text. And no, the 'southern press are mad' is not a suitable footnote, that is a personal opinion. This happens all over WP, and is a central policy enshrined as NPOV. I realy can't see how you even come close to justifying deleting the whole article on the back of some minor but controllable sock puppetry between 2 people. MickMacNee (talk) 02:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are actually justifying deleting the article now - a constant instability is exactly the problem. People can "self-identify" themselves as anything; it does not make them one. Pavel Srnicek is not, has never been and will never be a Geordie - you just nailed that one yourself by using the word "honourary". And the southern press are not "mad" - they're just regularly uninformed and inaccurate. This list is not maintainable - unless you can fix - and gain support on - the actual definition of "Geordie". Black Kite 02:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is absolutely ridiculous. Please provide a factual counter to the statement, 'Pavel is regularly termed a Geordie', that is not your personal opinon. Google the phrase 'Pavel is a Geordie', find me a contradictory source to that statement. Just as you assert he is not a Geordie, you will never prove he isn't, but you can prove beyond doubt that he is regularly termed a Geordie, and the reason why - this is the standard of entry of information to wikipedia, not your personal opinion, and not on whether joe bloggs disagrees but can't tell you why. And please provide me with a factual reason why your opinon is more accurate than the regularly "uninformed and innacurate" press. Tell me exactly what are you comparing their accuracy or level of information to, bar your opinon? There is no definition, these facts you assert are nonsense, the only truth here is that there are different interpretations according to different sources, for documentable reasons. This is absolutely 100% not a valid reason to delete this article. Just come to your senses and accept, like 99.999% of all other WP articles, it can be maintained with a NPOV and verifiable sources, and to assert anything else is personal opinion, and in this case highly dependant on where you yourself come from. Are you willing to state this by the way for a full and frank disclosure? MickMacNee (talk) 03:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) I'm not entirely sure why it matters where I'm from (apart from you assuming bad faith), but if you insist I was born in Leeds but have spent most of my life in the West Midlands. The important thing here is accuracy, so can I explain *again* why you're missing the point. Just because you can find a press source that says "Pavel Srnicek is a Geordie" doesn't mean he is - it's not, and never can be, a verifiable fact because it's always someone's opinion. Obviously, if Srnicek had been born in Newcastle, it would be a reasonable assumption; and as such a number of entries on the list are quite reasonable. But the problem arises when you extend the list too far - in fact you are basically extending the list to people who have anything to do with Newcastle. You are never going to be able to say that Tony Blair, for example, is a Geordie with any accuracy. The "source" in the article is a lazy throwaway line in a newspaper column. Google "Tony Blair"+Geordie and you get that column, one other reference and a few blogs ([4]) - and that's it. If Blair was really a Geordie there'd be hundreds of references. Equally, Bruce Welch (born in Bognor Regis) exists in the list purely through the fact that he once played in a band called the "Geordie Boys". This is Geordie-ism by association, and is necessarily POV, and is the main problem with the article. Black Kite 11:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a highly dubious reason for deleting the entire article when there are verifiable sources to support any definition of geordie you can find. The only personal opinion here is yours that people cannot understand that given this information. Basically, you are getting wikipedia to define the term, not reflect the term, ultimately an extreme violation of basic principles. MickMacNee (talk) 11:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this is my last posting on this, because you clearly don't get it - Wikipedia cannot "reflect" a term when the term is not accurately defined, and when people use it so loosely for it to be meaningless. To have a "List of X" article, then yes, we must define exactly what X is, or the article is, and always will be, fundamentally inaccurate. For instance, there is a list of cockneys in that article, because the term is tightly defined. You will not, however, find a List of Brummies or a List of Scousers (which would suffer from the same problem, because you could probably find an inaccurate quote about anyone who comes from anywhere near Liverpool) though you will find a list of people who speak with a scouse accent (because that's verifiable). And WP:V is policy, and that's the difference. Black Kite 11:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have of course verified that every listed cockney in that article was born within the Bow Bells (per my personal opinion)? You will note that not a single entry in that list has a single reference, as opposed to this list. This illustrates what a joke this nomination is.

And this point is outrageous, you are claiming this article does not meet WP:VER, a complete and utter lie. Just because the verification does not meet your personal opinion DOES NOT mean they are not verifiable sources. MickMacNee (talk) 15:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: Factually inaccurate. A "Geordie" is someone born along the River Tyne, but this lists people from Northumberland and County Durham - up to 100 miles from the river! It even lists Tony Blair, who was born in Scotland (Yes, he did spend some of his childhood in Durham but, even Durham-born people are NOT Geordies)--Seahamlass (talk) 00:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Doc^g 00:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm trying to think of an American equivalent, a demonym with an undefined geographical scope and at least sometimes negative connotations, and I came up with hillybilly and redneck. We don't have a list of rednecks and we don't have a list of hillbillies for good reason. --Dhartung | Talk 06:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no association between the usage of hillbilly and geordie. Think of it in terms of a talk show, you wouldn't get David Letterman introduce a guest as 'the famous Hillbilly/Redneck...'. It just doesn't compare. MickMacNee (talk) 11:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You must not have heard of Jeff Foxworthy. I don't hold it against you, though. --Dhartung | Talk 20:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MickMacNee, please stop this AFD disruption by causing arguments with everyone who wishes to delete the article, Black Kite is right the 1) article has ripped with opinions, 2) there are so many different opinions it is impossible to verify, 3) there is no definition of the term so it is impossible to verify, 4) Tony Blair, do you hear him speak in this "accent" on the TV?, 5) some of these people on the list are from the region of Wearside which has its own dialect and nickname Mackem which is sometimes unreconized and marked by libelous ignorant sources as "geordie" when it isn't 5) people from county durham have their own dialect too, Pitmatic, now stop this disruption. AndreNatas (talk) 11:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. If you could actualy provide some evidence of a libel case arising from someone being called a Geordie, that would be fantastic. If you could find an example of someone sueing WP per BLP for the same reason, that would be even better. I ask you now for a full and frank disclosure, shall I sue the cricketer Paul Collingwood for having unfortunately been called a mackem by a reporter despite his own words being on record, as per Black Kite? I await your advice. MickMacNee (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of similar US lists: List of African Americans, List of Italian Americans, List of German Americans and many more, I dare say. I expect that the exact definitions and borderline cases can be equally contentious. Is Barack Obama an African American when his mother was white and from Kansas? If he was born in Hawaii, why isn't he on the List of Native Hawaiians? The case of Geordies is no different. And the answer is to see what the sources say. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've found the master list now - Lists of Americans - and so we see that the idea that there are no similar US lists is quite mistaken. It's ok to call George Bush a Texan and/or a WASP but not to call Tony Blair a Geordie when the newspapers regularly do so? Gan hyem!. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly the point - newspapers don't regularly call Blair a Geordie and nor does anyone else - do a Google search for "Tony Blair"+Geordie and have a look ([5]). Black Kite 15:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already searched Google News and found plenty of hits. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I can hardly find any, even searching the archives ([6]). You would have thought that someone who was British PM for 10 years would generate thousands of hits, but I can find practically none. Most of those 448 hits above are merely stories that have the words "Tony Blair" and "Geordie" in the same story, with no link between them. Black Kite 16:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete — Lots of good reasons given above; I'll just add that this is dumb. nb: Letterman would be a Hoosier; do we have a List of Hoosiers? Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone ever created a list of Hoosiers? If so, did it last as long as this list without conflict? I am disgusted that Americans wish to frankly poke their noses in this debate and tell actual residents of the UK what a Geordie is. I would never presume to take the same liberty with their culture. A complete revision of history and fact. I won't insult these yanks by linking the source that has George Bush referring to the Geordie accent, they of course are already fully aware of this fact. MickMacNee (talk) 15:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, and no idea. You're making rash assumptions about who editors are and where they're from. Ya, I know what a Hoosier is; so? FYI, bickering with everyone that doesn't see an AfD in the same light as you do is not known to sway the discussion. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you accept my opinion on an Afd about Hoosiers if I had no clue what a Hoosier was bar the content of the wiki article? Tha fact that David Lettreman is a Hoosier means nothing in this debate, it is irrelevant to the subject, unless you wnant to start creating comparisons where there are none. MickMacNee (talk) 16:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete- too disruptive to be kept on wikipedia and this isn't anything new as there have been other pages that have been removed as a reason due to disruption and verifiablity see Brian Peppers, Daniel Brandt, libel, MickMacNee is a disruptive user. 86.154.197.75 (talk) 15:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)— 86.154.197.75 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

~~A highly suspicious post given that this is the 3rd post of this user. MickMacNee (talk) 15:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~

~~The closing admin will take that into account. Black Kite 15:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)~~Struck as a double !vote of User:AndreNatas. Black Kite 09:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per the nomination. This subject is clearly controversial, and so by its very existence edit-warring, disputes and unfriendly relations are resulting. This is by no means a full reason why it should be deleted, and I would not expect anyone to delete an article on this basis. However, this subject is slightly different in two distinct ways. One, is described in the nomination above by Black Kite: there is no definition of who is a Geordie and who isn't, which is encouraging enough to create all these tensions. Two, is the fact that most 'Geordies' (who are by my definition, people originating from Newcastle) are actually listed at List of people from Newcastle upon Tyne, and if they are 'even more' notable, they are at Newcastle upon tyne#Notable people - this pretty much renders the list redundant, and due to all these troubles its causing, its best to delete at this time. Rudget. 15:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but this is absolute and total rubbsih. It is not for you do dictate who is a Geordie and who isn't. If you want to do so you are clearly not a wikipedia editor. For the last time, there is no definition, your statement "who are by my definition, people originating from Newcastle" is complete original research. You will find that Sir Bobby Robson, probably the most famous Geordie in the world, is not included in either of the lists you quote. Stop trying to create definitions when they are not reflected IN REAL LIFE. If you do, it is again, frankly original research. MickMacNee (talk) 16:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MMN this is not a responsible way to act when an article of your creation is put up at AFD. I understand your concerns, but quoting original research and using capital letters is never to going to change anyone's mind, in fact it could compound someone's decision. Let the AFD play out and make any subsequent comments then. Rudget. 16:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where have I used OR? Please say so and I will gladly correct myself. MickMacNee (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Dhartung's argument. Daniel Brandt comes to mind, too. Tan | 39 16:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing of this Daniel article, but suffice to say, the term Hillbilly has absolutely nothing to do with Geordie. It is completely different. MickMacNee (talk) 16:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have great sympathy with MickMacNee's POV. "Geordie" is regularly misused by those from outside our region. It's not exactly a synonym for "someone from Newcastle"; nor does it refer only to a person who uses Geordie accent and dialect; it's certainly not shorthand for someone from the North-East, or who has a more general NE regional accent. Try calling someone from Durham or Sunderland a Geordie - then step back in a hurry! Having said all that, you then end up with a category which it is possible to define in general terms Geordie but about which it will never be possible to be definitive in every individual case, because it is so much about cultural belonging. The nearest you can get is a List of people from Newcastle upon Tyne and we have one of those. We don't have lists of Mackems, Scousers, Hoosiers and so on for the same reason. The nearest you can get, I think, is to keep the Geordie page and list links to individual Geordies there in a separate subsection. Some will also be on the List of people from Newcastle upon Tyne. No doubt it will run and run. -- Karenjc (talk) 17:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This list was spun out of Geordie by me precisely to enable better protection through information, what a joke that has obviously become. There is right now a list of mackems, and above is a contrdictory source for Paul Collingwood. So Afd yes? Along with notable cockneys? It is ridiculous to view this Afd and article as an isolated incidant. I will repeat, in which category will you place Sir Bobby Robson, and on what grounds will you go against 100% public and verifiable opinion that this man is a self confessed Geordie. He has not given you or wikipedia the right to tell him what he is and isn't. MickMacNee (talk) 17:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about Cockney so I went and had a look, and we don't have a separate list of Cockneys either. OK so there's a more hard-and-fast rule about what defines a Cockney (Bow Bells), but that makes it easier, not harder, to select candidates for inclusion in a list. (And I bet there are plenty who think of themselves culturally as Cockney even if they don't technically qualify as such.) If Cockney can get along fine with a list of Cockneys on the article page and no separate list, then I think Geordie can too. -- Karenjc (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The list of Geordies was spun out out of the Geordie article, so I take it you advocate just a merge back in?. It is irrelevant. There is a list of mackems and cockneys, even if they are not standalone lists. Perhaps some article Afd's are in order then, where the information is not in a list article, but nevertheless is a list. These lists are actualy even worse sourced than Geordie, so let's have a massive Afd for the entire country, rather than this pointed nomination. MickMacNee (talk) 17:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(insert)Just to clarify, what is the point in having the same information in an article or a list, or both? Why does a list in an article carry more weight? WP linking conventions make no difference between articles and linked content, and this is content originaly copied from an article, word for word, if you apply Afd standard to a list, they apply to an article as well. MickMacNee (talk) 17:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pointed nomination? Another attack on me. Did the warning you got on your userpage mean nothing to you? Anyway, the difference is that the other lists are contained in the articles themselves and can thus be deleted by any editor willing to be bold enough - AfDs are not required for them. Personally, I'd agree with you and certainly remove the one in Mackem because some of the sources are poor and most aren't sourced at all. Black Kite 17:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For crying out loud this list existed quite happily within the Geordie article for years, I listed it precisely to allow better vandalism protection, arguments of list v article are pointless if you truly understand the nature of wikipedia. Frankly you have allowed just one prolific and proven sock puppeteer to destroy an entire article by having it deleted. What an absolute joke. MickMacNee (talk) 18:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility again MickMacNee, this AFD nomination is not a joke, and why are you calling "Black Kite" a sockpuppeteer for nominating the article for deletion, since he is apparently "destroying" the topic. AndreNatas (talk) 18:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this AFD should be closed per WP:SNOW and the article deleted, as. It's pretty obvious what the general concensus is and it isn't going to change, at the same time you are doing nothing but making the process more disruptive and annoying. AndreNatas (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't merge of it, I would get rid of any list completely until it can be understood properly that people from county durham and wearside are not geordies, and until some concensus of what a geordie is etablished. A list like this shouldn't exsist, the sources it provides are simply POV pushed, they do not understand "what a geordie is" they are all disputed and different. Thus making it impossible to identify a geordie, and you MickMacNee are clearly out of order. AndreNatas (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I await your proof that Sir Bobby Robson, born in County Durham, is not a Geordie. I await your personal opinion as to why he is wrong. MickMacNee (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mick's main concern here seems to be that a separate list of Geordies is required in order to ensure Sir Bobby Robson is identified on Wikipedia as a Geordie, whereas he wouldn't appear on a List of people from Newcastle upon Tyne, because he was born in Sacriston. I agree that if you're going to list prominent Geordies anywhere on Wikipedia it would be a travesty to omit the great man, because he's got Geordie written all the way through him like a stick of rock. I just don't see it as necessary to maintain a separate article, (which will of necessity be a focus for the kind of AFD wrestling we now see), when you can list such people in a subsection of the Geordie article, as with Cockney. -- Karenjc (talk) 23:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My exact point in the original nomination, where I said "Whilst there are undoubtedly people who do belong on this list"... Black Kite 00:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He isn't wrong, but he isn't right either. There is no real definition, people have different views on the term hence why a list like this is inapropriate, its too disputed, useless. AndreNatas (talk) 18:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed content = delete? That's pretty much the point. It might be easy for you to easily dismiss content you don't understand, but for people who know what they are talking about, this whole process, and the excuse of confusion, is totally offensive and totaly not supported by the conventions of wikipedia.. MickMacNee (talk) 18:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Obviously unmaintainable list. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 17:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because? I don't see you ever trying to maintain it. MickMacNee (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It would be difficult or impossible to decide who should be on this list; at the moment, there are a number who have only the most tenuous reasoning for being there. Is it those who self-identify as Geordies? Those who have been called Geordies by someone else (but who may not agree with that description)? People who would like to be Geordies for one reason or another? The idea that someone who supports The toon is automatically a Geordie because there are a "billion reliable sources assigning the term Geordie to Newcastle Fans" seems like WP:SYN to me, for instance. --Kateshort forbob 18:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article quality or innate contentiousness is not a reason for deletion, anyone who has been involved in the trenches of many pages from homeopathy to just about any controversial biography can attest. Once a definition can be agreed upon, the rest should be easier. An innately notable subject. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How can you have a "List of X" when no-one can come to a decision what "X" is? Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 20:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ill-defined category, no reasonable inclusion criteria, and Dhartung makes the best arguement for deletion... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as lazy as this reason is, for everyone's reasons above. I'm not going to rehash them all. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 00:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The idea that this article should be deleted because of some edit-warring seems absurd. AFD is not dispute resolution. As an example of how to work this out, see List of massacres. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The edit-warring isn't the main problem - if you read the nomination, it is the fact that it is impossible to set a fixed guideline on who should and shouldn't be included in the article - and that means possible WP:BLP concerns. The article you mention is actually called List of events named massacres, and as such it is easy to say "this event was labelled a massacre in multiple reliable sources". Here, we have a list where practically every editor seems to have a different concept of what "Geordie" actually means. Black Kite 14:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The massacre article didn't get to its current state without a good deal of warring (and a title change). This matter of Geordie seems simpler since you already have the entries well-sourced. The only problem seems to be some bad-tempered editors who refuse to accept what the sources say. The answer is to make the editors go away, not the article. In the case of AndreNatas and his other socks, this seems to be happening. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it was as simple as that, I would never have nominated the article. Not only are a lot of the entries not well-sourced (see below), but the main problem is that the sources that define the content are contradictory, not just that editors cannot agree on them - the parent article shows that quite clearly. You will see that I gave at least six different "definitions" of Geordie in the nomination, and sources can be found to back up any of them, and a number of other definitions too. The Heather Mills and Tony Blair entries are typical; practically no-one who knows the subject would define either of them as Geordies, yet they are in the list because some editors insist that a throwaway line calling them Geordies from a journalist who plainly doesn't understand the term is enough to include them. Black Kite 15:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's no big deal. Just include the basis for calling each person a Geordie in the list - whether it's because they were born on the Tyne, drink Newcastle Brown or whatever their claim is. Provided there's a reliable source to back this up, it's fine. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Everyone agrees (including this article's staunchest defender) that the criterion for inclusion on the list cannot be defined. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 18:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This list has 153 references; however, the criterion for inclusion on the list cannot be defined. Just look at the article Geordie. User:Black Kite has given some very good reasons why this list should be deleted. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a clear criterion to the list is easy. I would add one immediately if the article not protected. It would say something like:

Inclusion in the list is determined by the existence of reliable sources describing the person as a Geordie.

Note that this is the only way that we should include people in any list since making our own determination would be original research. The idea that a special definition has to be constructed is contrary to our principles and so arguments based upon this misconception should be ignored.

Note also that deleting this article will not resolve the dispute - it will just push it back into the Geordie article where the prominent examples will be listed. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I explain why this wouldn't work? Imagine, for example, that we had an article List of the current best footballers in the world. Now, lots of journalists, in very well respected papers, say on a regular basis "X is one of the best footballers in the world at the moment". On that basis, X would belong in the list, because it's technically a reliable source. But that reliable source is merely someone's opinion, and it is the same with the definitions of Geordie here. Whilst some of the entries will no doubt be unarguable, many more will, and can only ever be, original research. We wouldn't have the footballers article, and the same should go for this. Black Kite 08:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is not a problem because it is not our goal to present The Truth. Here's how the second pillar puts it. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately, providing context for any given point of view, and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics. When a conflict arises regarding neutrality, declare a cool-down period and tag the article as disputed, hammer out details on the talk page, and follow dispute resolution.

STRONG KEEP Not only is there irrefutable evidence that Black Kite had been uncivil toward a news reporter 1 hour before this AfD nomination, there is also clearly an informal fallacy / false dilemma within the conclusion of Black Kite's nomination reasoning above. Moreover, Black Kite's unwillingness to accept the news reporter's more general defintion of Geordie and his or her subsequent nomination for deletion is a complete derailment of wiki-policy guidlines (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete). --Firefly322 (talk) 11:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm rather speechless, but I'd just point out this editor's previous edits here and here in relation to another contributor to this page. Black Kite 16:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More examples of well-known informal fallacy's--i.e. both an ad hominem and an association fallacy (both have been listed under WP:ATA#Other arguments to avoid). --Firefly322 (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you actually going to provide a rationale for your Keep vote here, or just continue to attack the nominator? Because at the moment, that's all you've come up with. Black Kite 18:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My general reasoning (i.e., rationale) is that the article is encyclopedic and has been constructed in such a way that it more than satisfies wikipedia guidelines. For improvement, the current lead-in should be changed to indicate the variety of definitions in use (or vague approximations), explaining (with references) their history and acceptance or lack of acceptence. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's more like it. My response would be that the place for that information is in the parent article Geordie (indeed, some of it already is) and if we really must have a list of possible Geordies then some of the better referenced ones could be listed there. Black Kite 19:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My response displaying understanding as to a good article's reason for existence (such as this fine article) should not be taken as a retraction of the evidence showing Black Kite's incivility and biasin making this AfD in the first place. Nor should a pointing out of such mistakes per WP:ATA#Other arguments to avoid over the course of this debate be taken--to paraphrase Black Kite--as attacking the nominator. --Firefly322 (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong~~ Keep. The term "Geordie" is not as disputed as one might surmise from the introduction to the Geordie article. The use of "Geordie" to refer to Newcastle United supporters is definitely non-standard (if not flat-out wrong, no matter what Sky TV may say). Geordies are people from Newcastle upon Tyne and the surrounding area, and the term is no more unclear or ambiguous than any other regional designation. As to how long one must live in the area to be considered a Geordie, that's a problem that's shared with every other "people from place X" list, and it should just be handled on a case-by-case basis. Klausness (talk) 20:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed from "strong keep" to just plain "keep", since there's already a List of people from Newcastle upon Tyne into which many people on this list could be merged. Still, I do think it should be kept, since "Geordie" is not the same as "born in Newcastle, and the list certainly has plenty of reliable references. Klausness (talk) 12:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment. Ignoring my earlier over reactions, this is what I hope is a more reasoned and rational objection to this Afd. There are a lot of statements being made that this article has attracted a large amount of disruption: it should be noted that this has been down to one extremely persistent sock puppet, who is so desperate for this article to dissapear he was the first to vote, within 3 minutes, and for some reason, despite his preferred method of regularly deleting and generaly disrupting talk pages or edits from 'banned' users, his comments remain all over this Afd, despite being outed as the owner of over 120 IP and named socks, and being recommended to be denied of all recognition here. This sock is extremely deceptive, and the talk page and article history of both this article and Geordie should be viewed in light of this, especially with his habit of going to the lengths of replying to himself to support his case, which is characteristicaly (now made worse by apparent support through this nomination) always claiming this article is disputed so should be deleted, when he is basically the only source of the disruption, consisting of only personal opinion to support his arguments. In view of this, I believe this content in reality has come nowhere near the what must be less than 0.005% of articles that get deleted due to unreconcilable disputes.

When I came to this page, I was possibly a bit too naive in reflecting the previous debates at the top with tags and links, as now I am aware of the number of socks he has used, these discussions should probably be more thoroughly checked, a brief look shows the sock was active in some or all of these. As I see it, the only reasons left for deletion in light of this one person sock are absolutely a question of a content dispute, which is not the venue for Afd, as has been pointed out here, and this should be handled on the talk page and by dispute resolution, but this has not been possible with the only notable objector against consensus being the prolific sock, until, as he wants, it has been brought to Afd, where it is now subject to very few opinons compared to the number of editors who might have viewed the article before Afd, and never seen the need to raise anything on the talk page. By its nature, the Afd opinions possibly see the issue as being more widespread than it actually is, by virtue of a brief look at the history. I haven't recognised many voters that have actually edited this article before. The very recent edit wars are basically all due to the one sock, with possiby multiple apparent views posted until you look closely - additionaly, many socks were not confirmed till after this Afd was filed and was already proceeding.

As for some of the Afd votes, the comparison of Geordie to Hillbilly is frankly not something any Geordie would recognise, it is simply a very very bad comparison to make, but that would ironically only be obvious to a native, and not an Afd voter. One voter even has English down has his second language, not the best standard to be deciding the fate of such an obviously notable and in use term of the English language. As for any possible offence that the term might cause (I find this highly dubious as compared to some of the things that can can be sourced and added to bios on WP), you could only make a proper case for someone from Sunderland proper, and not one of the people on the list are from Sundlerland (it should be noted the sock is). Any other case comes from the overlap of usage, which despite some objections, does exist, especially in places like Washington, which can contain both. This is not definable, but it is sourcable, just like cockney or any other subjective term. Mackem is a very recent term when compared to the history and evolution of Geordie. It should be noted the example given by the nominator, Paul Collingwood, tries to discredit a direct quote from the person in question calling themselves a Geordie. What more of a reliable source could you want?

As for objections of the separate nature of the list as a standalone list, it should be noted that this list was spun out of Geordie to offer more protection from the sock, who uses usernames and IPs alike, to allow temp anon protections of this page without preventing the natural evolution of Geordie which is one of the oldest articles I have seen on WP. Since the spin out, it has only increased from 79 to 89 entries, and hours before this Afd was filed, its existence had been supported by a third opinion. And a list of some form (actually unsourced) has existed in Geordie until spunout from at least since 2005, without attracing any kind of extreme hammer fist measure like an Afd. Any votes of the nature of a return to Geordie are effective merge votes, not delete, and would achieve nothing more than bringing inconvenience back to the main article if the sock ever returns. {Main} tags exist precisely to allow separation of this sort. MickMacNee (talk) 00:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you or someone please annotate the socks in this discussion. AndreNatas seems to be one of them but his suspect comments have not been tagged in an appropriate way. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is Andre and an IP on here as far as I know for now, but given his desperation and the lengths he goes to, it could be more. The point realy is the Afd judgements being made here by people who have never worked on the article might be going with the nom on the false impressions given by the talk pages and edit summaries. A full list is at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Molag Bal, where Dr Nat was a very recent one. Being from Sunderland, his account ZogontheTyne (NZogbia is a Newcastle player) shows how obsessed he is with this article. MickMacNee (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.